War in Syria 3

Another wounded child: CBC "Blame Russia!"

Photo of a child injured juxtaposed with a photo of the inside of a Russian jet. Because, yes, when the terrorists are losing, anything is fair game. And CBC readers really do need to be led by the nose. So maybe just REMIND them about another child lying dead on a Greek beach. Otherwise they may not make the "correct" conclusions.

CBC. Fronting for jihadists.

Quote:

As rebel hopes in Aleppo fade, Western media highlights stories of humanitarian disaster in the city and UN presses for a 48 hour ceasefire. The Russians respond by making practical suggestions to relieve the suffering in both government and rebel controlled areas of Aleppo.

There is a disturbing pattern here - when the head-chopping Wesetern-sponsored jihadists are losing the battle, then we hear noisy calls for a ceasefire. Translation: let the murderers reload. When those fighting the jihadists are winning, then we have what we have now; exaggerated claims about a humanitarian disaster, trivialisation of the humanitarian efforts already underway (not by the Western regimes), and attempts to shame those who are militarily defeating the barbarous jihadists into silence.

Non Western proposal to address humanitarian crisis in Aleppo

Key aspects of the excellent Russian proposal: creation of a corridor in which only humanitarian aid, and for the whole city, [not just the jihadist-controlled areas as the barbarous Western regimes want] can come into Aleppo, insuring no more arms, weapons, more fanatic jihadists can enter the city, and so on.

However, it's likely this proposal will be met by dead silence by the Western MSM.

Any civilians injured (much less the many Syrians that are killed by US-sponsored "moderate" jihadists) is bad. And they are much more vulnerable that those in the military in conflicts like the one in Syria.

But it's also true that the duplicity around the injured boy is despicable. Last month the US bombing in Syria killed 79 people. At most there was a perfunctory report, quickly forgotten, in the MSM. Why aren't these deaths getting the same attention as the injured boy?

My two bits. The injured boy can be used as a justification for more war, more violence, more funding for the "moderate" jihadists, more money for direct US (and NATO) bombing in Syria. That's why he matters to the US gov and its lickspittle MSM.

The 79 dead Syrians last month don't matter to the US, or the MSM, because they're not "important" deaths.

We will now get plenty of official media calling for more violence in Syria: more US bombing, more support for the "moderate" jihadists, and so on. Of that I have no doubt. And the photo of the shell shocked boy is simply a means to that end.

There are plenty of sober-minded analysts who take a similar view. I will post some links.

1. The Boy in the Ambulance: His name is OMRAN

The article also outlines some of the killers masquerading as "freedom and democracy" proponents around Syria.... most of whom have very nice offices in Washington's street of lobbyists.

The failure of five years of American efforts to drown the elected Syrian gov in blood and replace it with bloodthirsty jihadists intent on ethnic cleansing has evoked "outrage" from the US authorities. So a campaign for more war, based on the powerful image of an injured child, for example, is the next step.

Time Magazine gives instructions. The photo of the injured boy "cannot be unseen".

The Aleppo Poster Child ... to ensure that Aleppo remains in the hands of the "moderate" terrorists and splits Syria into feuding fiefdoms

sidebar: US military killed 73 civilians in Syria last month. I think I typed 79 upthread. My bad. The bulk of them ... women and children. You won't get any heart-rending photos (even though they exist) in the Western MSM about those civilian casualties.

Let's take an example. This is how CNN does it...

CNN wrote:

  The truth is that the image you see today is repeated every day in Aleppo,” said Mustafa al Sarouq, a cameraman with the Aleppo Media Center, who filmed the video. He spoke to CNN’s Nima Elbagir via Skype.” Every day we cover these massacres and these war crimes in Aleppo. When we go to the places that have been bombed, regime planes circle around and bomb it again to kill rescue workers that are helping civilians. They kill these people who are trying to rescue people.

    Activists blame the Syrian regime and Russia for the bombings. [The] footage shared on Aug. 17 by the Aleppo Media Center, reportedly show[s] the immediate aftermath of an apparent Syrian government or Russian airstrike in a rebel-held.

Problem is, the Aleppo Media Center is funded by the US government (USAID, NED, etc.) . And the US government has made it crystal clear, for over 5 years now, that overthrowing the Assad regime trumps everything else: millions of refugees, thousands killed, the country destroyed ...etc., etc..  with the idea of giving Syria precisely the same sorts of "blessings" that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc. have received ....

Here's another: Russia and Assad are responsible for "everything bad" that happens in Syria

Now for some counter evidence. Eva Bartlett with a good piece (Aug 14 - before the injured boy's photo controversy)

Western corporate media 'disappears' over 1.5 million Syrians and 4,000 doctors

Quote:

As the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian government make more significant advances in restoring security to northern Syria's Aleppo and its population, war-propagandizing human rights groups posing as neutral, and Western media (and Gulf counterparts like Al Jazeera) churn out recycled and debunked accusations anew.

And then the photo of the boy. Lots of links to back up her claims, footnotes, etc..

........................................................

Ask yourself the following: is an injured boy cause for more violence in Syria (by the NATO regimes, incl Canada) ?

Then, what to make of all the Syrians killed by the US-backed jihadists and "moderates"?

What are they? Chopped liver?

ikosmos wrote:

 

Why does the Canadian government website BLAME Syria for the regional crisis and says nothing [here - elsewhere there is plenty]  about the foreign funded jihadists that have been causing such horrors?

You don't have to agree but the position is that the Syrian government tried to hang on to power by bombing civilians in order to get to the rebels. If they had not resorted to this presumably the government would have fallen, a more credible government would ahve been installed and order -- including a defense against ISIS and others -- possible.

The country may not have fragmented as quickly or as badly if the Syrian government had not conducted a war on civilians. This created an opening that ISIS also bad for civilians took advantage of.

Neither the US nor Russia are defenders of civilians either -- theya re out to further their geopolitical goals. They do not want to be seen killing civilians but that is also politics -- and BS.

Now when you talk about foreign people interfering in Syria you also have those on the Syrian government side (There were Iranians involved before Russia stepped up its interest in the country). I don't see how the syrian government can be made up to be the victim of foreign influence. Arguably without support from Iran that government would have fallen long ago.

Syria is a mess. Trying to make out that one of the many sides is an innocent victim is hardly likely to lead to success.

Again -- there are no innocents in the country with weapons.

That's just wrong. We have plenty of examples - examples I have sarcastically described as those states benefiting from the blessings of Western civilization  - and we know what would happen in the scenario you describe.

Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Shall I go on? Or shall someone start lecturing me about how "immoral" it is to trivialize an injured boy?

But what to say about the trivialization of predatory war? Isn't this the greatest crime known to humanity?

ikosmos wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You don't have to agree but the position is that the Syrian government tried to hang on to power by bombing civilians in order to get to the rebels. If they had not resorted to this presumably the government would have fallen, a more credible government would ahve been installed and order -- including a defense against ISIS and others -- possible.

The "rebels" have demonstrated what they want. The restoration of a Caliphate and the liquidation of the "infidels". I don't see how a morgue is more "credible".

Quote:

Now when you talk about foreign people interfering in Syria you also have those on the Syrian government side (There were Iranians involved before Russia stepped up its interest in the country). I don't see how the syrian government can be made up to be the victim of foreign influence. Arguably without support from Iran that government would have fallen long ago.

This is contempt for the sovereinty of states. The concept is a corner stone of international law. States have the right to defend themselves.

There's no arguing with such block-headedness.

Sorry but you are spreading bullshit right now. This is nothing to do with contempt for sovereignty of states to explain a policy. I stted what the policy was and that there are no innocent actors there. If you think that is block-headed-- I return the favour in my opinion of your statements in this forum.

And guess what -- if I want to have an opinion about anyone this does not make it blockheaded or contempt. It is just an opinion. I am not personally interfering in Syria and I ahve not endorsed ANYONE.

So dial it back if you don't like the feedback.

OK, fine. I'm sick of the BS.

Here's a critical point re sovereignty. ONLY the Russians have the support of the Syrian authorities to be militarily active in that country. Only Russia. Period. The other states  - US, Canada, Turkey, you name it - have no such approval. That basically means that any military action they do in Syria is a war crime.

Edited to add: military action by states, like the US and Canada, inside the territory of Syria without Syria's permission is like an invasion. It's an act of war. A war crime. This is extremely serious. It could literally start a regional or global war. In fact, this is HOW regional and World Wars have started. Hitler invaded Poland. The rest is history. If that sort of shite happens again, we could all wind up being nuclear ash.

This is what I mean by contempt for sovereignty. Syria is a member state of the UN, with recognized, elected leader, blah blah. So the actions of our NATO regimes - including Canadian interference in Syria - violates this bedrock international law.

I don't see how you can be so glib about this. The NATO regimes are acting like brigands.

Now say what you like about the Russians - and I'm sure there's plenty to criticize - the fundamental point is that they have been scrupulous about this issue. And, lo and behold, the Iranians have recognized this as well ... and allowed Russia to fly their aircraft to Iranian bases ... something that took a constitutional change in Iran - and hasn't been done since 1945.

Sorry. The Russians got it right. Everyone else is wrong.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Okay I am a bit pissed off today at another person on this board who has no desire to argue what is actually being said.

Don't take that out on ikosmos, or I'll  just have two things to feel guilty about.

Fair enough. And we can do with a reset -- start again better on something else.

1. That "dictator" has more support than the current US President. He won the most recent election fair and square. There is no way that he could have retained power - in the situation of foreign fighters in a virtual invasion of the country - without widespread support. Tens of thousands of Syrians would not lay down their lives to save their country were this not true. You're just blowing hot air.

Of course, the Western MSM was mostly dead silent on this. It didn't fit the narrative of "dictator Bashar al Assad" ... a narrative that you are lapping up.

2. They (Russia) certainly are giving DAESH a hard time and "exacerbating the conflict". They aim to wipe out the jihadists. And good on them. Unlike the barbarous Western regimes, that funnel money and support to the "moderate" terrorists and such, at least they are consistent and have made an enormous differnce in less than a year.

The jihadists are getting whupped. Too fukcing bad. Almost 5 years of the US and NATO "fighting the terrorists" showed bugger all. Good on Russia for making a difference. And shame on the NATO regimes for stoking the conflict from outside and creating misery on a mass scale.

Here's an example of the hubris of the Empire. It's really quite astounding.

The USA, with troops and "trainers" and arms inside Syria, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF SYRIA (i.e., for all intents and purposes it is a US invasion of that country, an act of war against Syria just to be there), recently lectured Syria on what they could do inside their own country.

The US warned Syria of what it could do, and not do, in fighting terrorists inside Syria. Oh, and the US also warned Moscow as well. (The Russians are the only country to be officially invited to Syria to fight the terrorists. )

This is the action of a barbarous regime, used to barking orders to everyone.

Quote:

In the most direct public warning to Moscow and Damascus to date, the new US commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria is vowing to defend special operations forces in northern Syria if regime warplanes and artillery attack again in areas where troops are located.

CNN: All those who oppose the US Empire will die!

Babblers who think the conduct of the US Empire and the Russian regime in Syria is much the same are hopelessly biased. But it's hard to be independently minded and not re-gurgitate the missives of the Empire when we're all so much awash in their propaganda. 

Try harder.

off-Guardian: Well, that didn't take long.

Quote:

The past two weeks, the ten days following our article predicting a marked increase in a pro-Syrian war rhetoric…there has been marked increase in pro-war rhetoric. The Guardian, CNN and the Washington Post have all published editorials decrying the West’s “lack of action” in Syria, and especially in Aleppo.

They predicted a shrill call for war and ... there is a shrill call for war.

Quote:

Finally, today, there was a The Guardian’s “reveal” of a reconstruction of Assad’s “torture prison”, and the suddenly “iconic” photograph of a little boy in an ambulance that totally accidentally went viral.

The prison article comes with accompanying horror stories (none of which are independently corroborated), and the now habitual practice of dead-panning absurdities as if they are grave revelations. The prison was apparently recreated using “ear-witness testimony” as “a sort of sonar”. Which is to say, the entire article could be totally meaningless if an alleged torture victim’s five-year old memory of an echo is slightly flawed. The article and even goes so far as to have an NGO employee openly declare the political motivation of the release. The aim, he said, is to:

…ensure that Assad is no part of any future peace deal.”

Which is another way of saying that the "humanitarian" organizations are on exactly the same page as the US State Department.

Let's bring the blessings of Western civilization to Syria! Just look at the grateful Afghans, Iraqis, and Libyans for similar blessings! They're so thankful that they're coming to Europe in the millions to thank us personally! [/rolleyes]

So what to conclude?

Quote:

Hiding behind mythic American “inaction”, they clamor for war in the name of peace and beg governments to take an action that was being planned in the Pentagon ten years ago. They employ NGOs they created, to cite statistics they invented, to try to prove that black is white and bombs can save lives.

It’s just the same as Saddam’s “super gun”, and the Kuwaiti babies being thrown out of incubators. It’s just the same as the 45 minutes.

It’s just the same as their last attempt in Syria, in 2013. Only this time with much higher stakes. Hopefully it will be just as effective.

ikosmos wrote:

Here's an example of the hubris of the Empire. It's really quite astounding.

The USA, with troops and "trainers" and arms inside Syria, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF SYRIA (i.e., for all intents and purposes it is a US invasion of that country, an act of war against Syria just to be there), recently lectured Syria on what they could do inside their own country.

The US warned Syria of what it could do, and not do, in fighting terrorists inside Syria. Oh, and the US also warned Moscow as well. (The Russians are the only country to be officially invited to Syria to fight the terrorists. )

This is the action of a barbarous regime, used to barking orders to everyone.

Quote:

In the most direct public warning to Moscow and Damascus to date, the new US commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria is vowing to defend special operations forces in northern Syria if regime warplanes and artillery attack again in areas where troops are located.

CNN: All those who oppose the US Empire will die!

Babblers who think the conduct of the US Empire and the Russian regime in Syria is much the same are hopelessly biased. But it's hard to be independently minded and not re-gurgitate the missives of the Empire when we're all so much awash in their propaganda. 

Try harder.

When you have a civil war and outside countries interfere I don't think there is a great superiority for the side interfering to support the government. The government in a full civil war is just one of the two sides.

ikosmos wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

When you have a civil war and outside countries interfere I don't think there is a great superiority for the side interfering to support the government. The government in a full civil war is just one of the two sides.

Characterizing events in Syria as a civil war, without qualification, trivializes the well-$ponsored terrorists, most of whom are not Syrian, who have made it their aim to drown that country in blood, carry out ethnic and sectarian cleansing, chop a few heads off for fun and profit, and establish a fundamentalist Sunni Takfiri regime.

If you can treat the only hope for a relatively peaceful transition for Syria - don't forget Assad has managed to bring over to his side no small number of fellow Syrians, thousands of whom have laid down their lives to defend the Assad led Syria - with these giddy child beheaders then you've failed to put any critical distance between your own views and those of, e.g., the US regime whose avowed aim is, and has been, the bloody overthrown of the democratically elected, UN recognized government of Syria and its replacement by terrorists. 

WTF? Do you have any idea what would happen in Syria with these terrorists winning the conflict? Does: Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq and the millions dead and displaced mean nothing to you?

How many dead Arabs is enough? These sorts of "liberal" views that you're defending are just evil.

 

 

Are you purposefully forgetting that there are more than two sides fighting in Syria? It sure looks like it.

Or he (and the rest of us) aren't uncritically accepting your particular version of events.

Link for photo? Is it the 2014 protest in which right-wing Israeli pols protested with "ISIS-style flags" against African refugees, perhaps? Several links but I'll give you one from one of your approved web sites to that protest - http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-rightists-wave-isis-style-flags-in-...

off-Guardian: tears the Guardian a new one.

Quote:

The Guardian wasted no time in further exploiting the al Nusra promotional vid it already splurged on its front pages without bothering to check the source. Hardly was it uploaded to the servers before the Graun was using it as a platform to promote – yet again – the (current) official western narrative on Syria, viz that it’s all about Assad and his Russian allies brutalising civilians and some lovely vaguely-defined “rebels”, and if only they could be made to stop everything would be fine.

We have to say “current” narrative because it changes, frequently. Yes, Assad was indeed previously the premier bad guy du jour, but after the failure to get approval for airstrikes against him, the official narrative became vague about than and started saying ISIS was the problem and no.1 threat to western civilisation, remember? And that remained the line until Russia intervened and started bombing ISIS, which unexpectedly blew that official narrative to bits. Now we have version three, or a reboot of version two. Now suddenly and inexplicably, ISIS has gone from threatening the world with its multi-billion dollar oil and artefact empire to being a sort of barely-acknowledged bit-player whose precise whereabouts are never defined, except that they are never ever located were Russia is bombing – which is always where the “moderates” are. Now, once again the problem is Assad, but mostly it’s Russia, because since they’ve been there they have done literally nothing but bomb hospitals. Because, you see, they are movie bad guys who are evil purely for the sake of it, and we in the west are heroes who have to somehow foil them.

The remark about ISIS whereabouts "never ever located where Russia is bombing" is very much to the point. Everyone the Syrians (or the Russian AF) bomb is a "moderate". Just where the terrorists are, well, who cares? It's those bad old  Rooskies. Yup.

Guardian deletes 45% of comments BTL to control its Syria agenda

It's a little surprising that the off-Guardian hasn't been subject to a Denial-of-Service attack from NSA, CIA, etc. yet. Edited to add: at this time, not the off Guardian, but RT is, once again, subject to such an attack. Try to get to the website. You can't. [4:24 Eastern Monday Aug 22, 2016]

Supplemental: Here's the guy who uploaded the vid of the injured child in the ambulance. A real charmer. Yes, that's also him smiling with the "moderates" who just cut the head off a 12 year old boy. You know. The moderates that the US can't bring itself to call terrorists.

Mahmoud Raslan

The critique and the article that evoked the critique. [from the OffGuardian (UK)  and the Council on Foreign Relations (USA)]

Quote:

a few thousand weasel words from the CFR that amounts to:

1. Jabhat al Nusra are as violent and ideological as ISIS but they're pragmatic about it so that makes it much better.

2. They are totes better than Assad anyway because reasons

3. The US can't join Russia to fight Jabhat al Nusra because that will make them cross

4. Since the US can't fight al Nusra they will have to sort of work with them - but that is ok because they have changed their name to Jabhat Fateh al Sham, so they don't sound as bad in the media, and the other (unidentified) non-extreme rebels might persuade them to start being nicer.

5. The US bombs civilians by accident but Russia does it on purpose (no really the article actually says this).

This is how you manage to sell the fact the US is backing murderous, dangerous terrorists to overthrow an elected president as being the moral high ground and Russia helping the elected president defeat the terrorists as the pits of evil.

Here's the article:

Council on Foreign Relations: Understanding the Battle of Aleppo

Quote:

The US bombs civilians by accident but Russia does it on purpose (no really the article actually says this).

Some impressive analysis here. Even the intra-Kurdish politics and alliances are mind-boggling. The US support for certain Kurds (given the general failure of US policy otherwise) makes "sense" from the point of view of achieving their [brutal] aims.

Syria - The U.S. Creates More Chaos While The Grown-Ups Talk Resolution

ikosmos wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Are you purposefully forgetting that there are more than two sides fighting in Syria? It sure looks like it.

Each comment you make here just shows how little you understand this conflict. If there is no Syrian state held together - at the present time Assad playing an essential role, whatever happens in the future  - then the alternative is some dismembered set of fiefdoms, among which is a terrorist regime, a US-sponsored Kurdish regime (terrorist), and so on. A bloodbath even worse than the present. Much worse. 

There are no other powers on the ground militarily strong enough to establish a lasting authority. The Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Russian AF are allied with the Syrian authorities. They're all quite aware of the problems with the current government but there is simply no alternative to it. Well, none if you exclude the terrorists.

The terrorists have Saudi, Qatari, probably Israeli, and US and NATO backers. All the games that the NATO regimes are playing - changing the names of their "moderate" terrorists to confuse an inattentive person - cannot hide the fact that their "moderates" are a complete fiction.

China has now agreed to help the Syrian Arab Army train their troops.

The only big question mark is the role of Turkey. The Turks are sick and tired, especially after what they see as a US sponsored coup d'etat, of a lack of support from the US for the Turkish fight against the Kurdish separatists. Turkey and Syria have a common interest here; the Syrians want a single state, and the Turks want no Kurdish regime next door, able to hit and run at their leisure.

The US would be quite happy establishing a puppet Kurdish statelet that they could use the way they used Kosovo. As an overblown US military base. This is the favoured American approach; divide and rule, a divided Syria, along ethnic and/or sectarial lines. Because that's what Empires do. And now. the latest is the US military issuing "warnings" to Syrian (and Russian) authorities to stay away from those parts of Syria in which US Special Forces are dug in. The Americans literally don't give a shit if they start WW3. Talk about an evil Empire.

Either a unitary Syrian state or horrors much worse than the present. You just don't get it ... or don't care to get it.

Yeah -- the you don't understand, don't know and don't get it is the refuge for people who have no better arguments.

I disagree with the principle that foreign nations can intervene in a country in civil war so long as they are "invite" by the government.

I did not make up that position and I have been against it all my adult life. This is one more example.

It is also the typical cold warrior excuse.

Debate me if you like but it is utter garbage to respond using the tactic you are using.

There is nothing inherently different about interference in a local conflict based on which side you are interfering on.

swallow wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

I find all this glib indifference to war most despicable. 

There is no glib indifference to war, though. You're just throwing insults at people who are not in lockstep with your views. 

Very well said.

Neo-cons and Clinton warmongers prepare to attack Syria.

They are literally playing chicken with the Syrian and Russian AF, daring them to fight back, making WW3 possible.

Quote:

Neocons and Clintonites have launched a major campaign with the goal of direct US military intervention and aggression against Syria, potentially leading to war with Iran and Russia. An early indication emerged as soon as it was clear the Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party nominee.  Following the California primary, the NY Times reported on State Department diplomats issuing an internal memo “urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al Assad.”

The glib and smug indifference expressed on this thread, the contempt for the sovereignty of Syria, for simple justice and respect for international law, is disgraceful. There's no happiness in the prospect of "I told you so", after thermonuclear war.

Quote:

What Has been the role of the Western Left?

The left has been weak in responding and opposing the aggression against Syria. Major factors have included:

- Saudi and US State Dept funded Muslim groups which support the aggression against Syria. This includes the recently famous Dr Zaher Sahloul and the Syrian American Medical Society. SAMS and Zahloul are aligned with Saudi Arabia and receive substantial State Dept funding.

- deluded leftist groups who support a fantasy “revolution” in Syria just as they did in Libya.

- the flooding of social media and the internet by “activists” and Syrian “civil society” groups who are actually paid and trained agents of the west. This is confirmed by Clinton herself in her book “Hard Choices”.

- uncritical acceptance of major NGOs who are predominately funded by billionaires. These organizations need to be considered with some skepticism. For example, in 1990, Amnesty International mistakenly corroborated the accuracy of the false claim that Iraqi soldiers were stealing incubators from Kuwait, leaving babies to die on the cold floor. In the runup to the 2003 invasion of Syria, Human Rights Watch did not oppose the invasion and implicitly accepted it by only criticizing the lack of preparation.  Physicians for Human Rights, another Soros project, has issued grossly misleading reports on Syria.

- alternative media which is progressive on many issues but echoes NPR and mainstream media on critical foreign policy issues including the Syrian conflict.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

These are right-wing members of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) ...

DEMONSTRATING IN FAVOUR OF ISIS.

WHY? Well, Hezbollah is fighting ISIS, so they support ISIS.

link: David Lindsay blog - Edging Closer (to madness)

 

Even the blog post does not mention that the picture is actually from 2014. It implies the picture is current.

Digital information about the picture has been removed.

Yes, it's propaganda designed to mislead, I think that's been established. 

The propagandists will not concede that point, however, but will move on to posting new lines of propaganda and label anyone with slightly divergent views as an imperialist warmonger. 

ikosmos wrote:

swallow wrote:

Link for photo? Is it the 2014 protest in which right-wing Israeli pols protested with "ISIS-style flags" against African refugees, perhaps? Several links but I'll give you one from one of your approved web sites to that protest - http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-rightists-wave-isis-style-flags-in-...

 

Let me get this right. You're quoting an article in which Israelis remark "I am a proud racist", etc. to debunk claims that Members of the Knesset are supporting ISIS?

More from the article you quote ...

Quote:

Yet the demonstrating Israelis are furious over the verdict, which will let Africans out of Holot in the next three months. They represent a nationalist sect of Israeli society that does not want any African non-Jews present in the country. For such activists as Marzel, the court’s decision to release the asylum seekers back to Tel Aviv is “more dangerous to Israel than ISIS.”

The blogger claimed the "protestors" included Members of the Israeli Parliament, such as Michael Ben Ari, Baruch Marzel, et al. There are actually photos of them in the article you link to.

Member of the Knesset? Check.

Waving mock ISIS flags? Check.

Noting that the cruel treatment of African refugees should continue, because they're MUCH WORSE than ISIS? Check.

OK, yeah, I'm totally wrong here.

 

The picture is from 2014 -- and that is relevant.

The reason is that in 2014 much of what ISIS became was not yet known. The protest has a different context.